Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Toon,
- How about the consensus metaphysical assumption of scientists?
Click to expand...

Maybe will need a poll? Do you have one? I would help out by doing a poll now, but most of the scientists that I approached would rather talk about physics than metaphysics.
 
Humots said:
If A is defined as "the hypothesis that selves are immortal", where do you get P(A) = .01 and P(~A) = .99?

How can you assign any probability to A at all?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Humots,

- You're right -- I answered as if I were just reversing the current equation, in which case, what is currently A would become ~A, and what is currently ~A would become A.
Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely, Jabba.

I wasn't questioning the reversal of P(A) and P(~A).

I was pointing out that assigning any probability to a "hypothesis" pulled out of thin air was begging the question.

By assigning any probability to A, no matter how small, you are assuming that A has a possibility of being true.

Let A = "Jabba owes me one trillion dollars", and assume P(A) = 0.000000001. Does this mean you owe me one thousand dollars?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I'll double check my figures, but this should do.
- P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)* P(~A))
- P(A|me) = .5 *.01/ (.05 * .01 + 1/1080! * .99)
- P(A|me) = .005/(.005+(a little less than1/1080!))
- P(A|me) = (a very little less than 1.00)
Click to expand...


How do you justify using different numbers here than you did when A was defined as "the hypothesis that any potential “self” has only one, finite, life to live"? You still only have one body to occupy, and one "now" in which to occupy it, and immortality would not change the number of potential selves.
 
Jabba said:
- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding, 2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations and 3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far. Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang, there had to be a Big Bang and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
The Anthropic Principle is not something that is "at work".
Click to expand...
- Could be that I didn't express my claim above -- about the Anthropic Principle -- well enough to be understood. But otherwise, why would you say that the Anthropic Principle is not something that is "at work"?
- Maybe, I just misunderstood what you were saying, and that you just meant that there really is not something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life?
 
Humots said:
You missed my point entirely, Jabba.

I wasn't questioning the reversal of P(A) and P(~A).

I was pointing out that assigning any probability to a "hypothesis" pulled out of thin air was begging the question.

By assigning any probability to A, no matter how small, you are assuming that A has a possibility of being true.

Let A = "Jabba owes me one trillion dollars", and assume P(A) = 0.000000001. Does this mean you owe me one thousand dollars?
Click to expand...
Humots,
- Do you mean that any hypothesis that simply claims that another hypothesis is wrong is "begging the question," or "pulled out of thin air"?
 
Jabba said:
- Could be that I didn't express my claim above -- about the Anthropic Principle -- well enough to be understood. But otherwise, why would you say that the Anthropic Principle is not something that is "at work"?
- Maybe, I just misunderstood what you were saying, and that you just meant that there really is not something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life?
Click to expand...

No. I don't think that the Anthropic Principle is at work here at all, that it doesn't apply to your theory in any way, and that your post doesn't even appear to represent an understanding of the Anthropic Principle. If you didn't express yourself correctly, what you did say was very wrong.
 
Jabba said:
Humots,
- Do you mean that any hypothesis that simply claims that another hypothesis is wrong is "begging the question," or "pulled out of thin air"?
Click to expand...

If you read any of the relevant posts already here, you will understand very well the reference to "begging the question". Your numbers were made up out of thin air after you already decided on the truth of your hypothesis, and were made up expressly to "prove" your hypothesis. I am happy to be proven wrong if you can tell me the factual source of you numbers (if you did not create them from your imagination).
 
Jabba said:
Humots,
- Do you mean that any hypothesis that simply claims that another hypothesis is wrong is "begging the question," or "pulled out of thin air"?
Click to expand...

Good evening, Mr. Savage!

This post,I must say, is as breathtakingly disingenuous as anything you ever posted in the Divine Dinner Drapeage, I and II threads. What you say here is, of course, not what was suggested at all.

You selected your "target" after the fence was hit; you began trying to support your "conclusion" after you had decided it was true.

Do consider simply presenting your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".
 
Jabba said:
- Could be that I didn't express my claim above -- about the Anthropic Principle -- well enough to be understood. But otherwise, why would you say that the Anthropic Principle is not something that is "at work"?
Click to expand...

Red herrings by the shoal.
The anthropic principle didn't exist until a few days ago when you first introduced it to this tread.
 
Humots said:
I was pointing out that assigning any probability to a "hypothesis" pulled out of thin air was begging the question.

By assigning any probability to A, no matter how small, you are assuming that A has a possibility of being true.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Humots,
- Do you mean that any hypothesis that simply claims that another hypothesis is wrong is "begging the question," or "pulled out of thin air"?
Click to expand...

No, I mean that assigning any probability to a "hypothesis" pulled out of thin air was begging the question.

Because by assigning any probability to A, no matter how small, you are assuming that A has a possibility of being true.
 
Jabba said:
Porpoise,
- Sorry about your head, but you got it right. I think that I cannot not exist.
Click to expand...

You may be on to...something. If you could not-exist, then the universe completely botched an all but certain opportunity to insure your permanent nonexistence. Your brain was a 1080! : 1 shot. Yet, a 14-billion-year barrage of cataclismic chaos and multiple mass extinctions delivered by various means could not prevent that brain from slouching toward New York to be born. The universal plan for your eternal nonexistence fell apart. The Center did not hold.

But I'm sure you will find no shortage of thread denizens who will assure you that you are nevertheless fated to not-exist forever - a fate which will permanently resume as soon as the universe clears up the little matter of your current existence. Thereafter, the sages of skepticism will assure you, the universe will zealously guard against any further anomalous incursions by you. Your converging-on-zero prior probability will be permanently reduced to a flat zero, you will be given to understand.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
You may be on to...something. If you could not-exist, then the universe completely botched an all but certain opportunity to insure your permanent nonexistence. Your brain was a 1080! : 1 shot. Yet, a 14-billion-year barrage of cataclismic chaos and multiple mass extinctions delivered by various means could not prevent that brain from slouching toward New York to be born. The universal plan for your eternal nonexistence fell apart. The Center did not hold.

But I'm sure you will find no shortage of thread denizens who will assure you that you are nevertheless fated to not-exist forever - a fate which will permanently resume as soon as the universe clears up the little matter of your current existence. Thereafter, the sages of skepticism will assure you, the universe will zealously guard against any further anomalous incursions by you. Your converging-on-zero prior probability will be permanently reduced to a flat zero, you will be given to understand.
Click to expand...
- Yeah.
- And, I've probably said this before -- but, for some reason, the poem you allude to above has become my all-time favorite... How do you figure?
 
Humots said:




No, I mean that assigning any probability to a "hypothesis" pulled out of thin air was begging the question.

Because by assigning any probability to A, no matter how small, you are assuming that A has a possibility of being true.
Click to expand...
- You're saying that the prior probability of the new A is zero?
 
Jabba said:
- You're saying that the prior probability of the new A is zero?
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It is not that the prior probability is zero, or that you have chosen the worng number for the prior probability of A.

It is, instead, that you assign any numerical value to the probability of A at all, given your utter lack of any evidence.

TSF, again, and still.
 
- Back to the key question: what sets a particular example of an oft-occurring event apart from its fellows, so that we are justified (in the Bayes formula) in according the example the likelihood of it specifically occurring, versus according it the general likelihood of any one of the oft-occurring events occurring?
- Any problems with that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom